Can a nation be “systemically racist” and elect a black president twice?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Our nation isnt represented with systemic racism, whatever the hell that means.

America has become the junkie who denies he has a drug problem.

Yeah? Prove it then. Show us systemic racism.

Just a glimpse

To the fugitive slave fleeing a life of bondage, the North was a land of freedom. Or so he or she thought. Upon arriving there, the fugitive found that, though they were no longer slaves, neither were they free. African Americans in the North lived in a strange state of semi-freedom. The North may had emancipated its slaves, but it was not ready to treat the blacks as citizens. . . or sometimes even as human beings. Northern racism grew directly out of slavery and the ideas used to justify the institution. The concepts of "black" and "white" did not arrive with the first Europeans and Africans, but grew on American soil. During Andrew Jackson's administration, racist ideas took on new meaning. Jackson brought in the "Age of the Common Man." Under his administration, working class people gained rights they had not before possessed, particularly the right to vote. But the only people who benefited were white men. Blacks, Indians, and women were not included. This was a time when European immigrants were pouring into the North. Many of these people had faced discrimination and hardship in their native countries. But in America they found their rights expanding rapidly. They had entered a country in which they were part of a privileged category called "white." Classism and ethnic prejudices did exist among white Americans and had a tremendous impact on people's lives. But the bottom line was that for white people in America, no matter how poor or degraded they were, they knew there was a class of people below them. Poor whites were considered superior to blacks, and to Indians as well, simply by virtue of being white. Because of this, most identified with the rest of the white race and defended the institution of slavery. Working class whites did this even though slavery did not benefit them directly and was in many ways against their best interests. Before 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States. In the northeastern states, blacks faced discrimination in many forms. Segregation was rampant, especially in Philadelphia, where African Americans were excluded from concert halls, public transportation, schools, churches, orphanages, and other places. Blacks were also forced out of the skilled professions in which they had been working. And soon after the turn of the century, African American men began to lose the right to vote -- a right that many states had granted following the Revolutionary War. Simultaneously, voting rights were being expanded for whites. New Jersey took the black vote away in 1807; in 1818, Connecticut took it away from black men who had not voted previously; in 1821, New York took away property requirements for white men to vote, but kept them for blacks. This meant that only a tiny percentage of black men could vote in that state. In 1838, Pennsylvania took the vote away entirely. The only states in which black men never lost the right to vote were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. The situation in what was then the northwest region of the country was even worse. In Ohio, the state constitution of 1802 deprived blacks of the right to vote, to hold public office, and to testify against whites in court. Over the next five years, more restrictions were placed on African Americans. They could not live in Ohio without a certificate proving their free status, they had to post a $500 bond "to pay for their support in case of want," and they were prohibited from joining the state militia. In 1831 blacks were excluded from serving on juries and were not allowed admittance to state poorhouses, insane asylums, and other institutions. Fortunately, some of these laws were not stringently enforced, or it would have been virtually impossible for any African American to emigrate to Ohio. In Illinois there were severe restrictions on free blacks entering the state, and Indiana barred them altogether. Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin were no friendlier. Because of this, the black populations of the northwestern states never exceeded 1 percent. African Americans also faced violence at the hands of white northerners. Individual cases of assault and murder occured throughout the North, as did daily insults and harassment. Between 1820 and 1850, Northern blacks also became the frequent targets of mob violence. Whites looted, tore down, and burned black homes, churches, schools, and meeting halls. They stoned, beat, and sometimes murdered blacks. Philadelphia was the site of the worst and most frequent mob violence. City officials there generally refused to protect African Americans from white mobs and blamed blacks for inciting the violence with their "uppity" behavior. African Americans and their white allies did not simply sit back and accept Northern racism; they responded to it in a whole range of ways.... Continued here: Race-based legislation

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Can a nation be “systemically racist” and elect a black president twice?

No.

The racists didn't vote for Obama. It was democrats and independents that did that.

But now republicans control the majority of state houses, making racism systematic.

Please point out a law that is racist.

You just want one? There are tons of them

 

[Godboy]

Our nation isnt represented with systemic racism, whatever the hell that means.

America has become the junkie who denies he has a drug problem.

Yeah? Prove it then. Show us systemic racism.

Just a glimpse

To the fugitive slave fleeing a life of bondage, the North was a land of freedom. Or so he or she thought. Upon arriving there, the fugitive found that, though they were no longer slaves, neither were they free. African Americans in the North lived in a strange state of semi-freedom. The North may had emancipated its slaves, but it was not ready to treat the blacks as citizens. . . or sometimes even as human beings. Northern racism grew directly out of slavery and the ideas used to justify the institution. The concepts of "black" and "white" did not arrive with the first Europeans and Africans, but grew on American soil. During Andrew Jackson's administration, racist ideas took on new meaning. Jackson brought in the "Age of the Common Man." Under his administration, working class people gained rights they had not before possessed, particularly the right to vote. But the only people who benefited were white men. Blacks, Indians, and women were not included. This was a time when European immigrants were pouring into the North. Many of these people had faced discrimination and hardship in their native countries. But in America they found their rights expanding rapidly. They had entered a country in which they were part of a privileged category called "white." Classism and ethnic prejudices did exist among white Americans and had a tremendous impact on people's lives. But the bottom line was that for white people in America, no matter how poor or degraded they were, they knew there was a class of people below them. Poor whites were considered superior to blacks, and to Indians as well, simply by virtue of being white. Because of this, most identified with the rest of the white race and defended the institution of slavery. Working class whites did this even though slavery did not benefit them directly and was in many ways against their best interests. Before 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States. In the northeastern states, blacks faced discrimination in many forms. Segregation was rampant, especially in Philadelphia, where African Americans were excluded from concert halls, public transportation, schools, churches, orphanages, and other places. Blacks were also forced out of the skilled professions in which they had been working. And soon after the turn of the century, African American men began to lose the right to vote -- a right that many states had granted following the Revolutionary War. Simultaneously, voting rights were being expanded for whites. New Jersey took the black vote away in 1807; in 1818, Connecticut took it away from black men who had not voted previously; in 1821, New York took away property requirements for white men to vote, but kept them for blacks. This meant that only a tiny percentage of black men could vote in that state. In 1838, Pennsylvania took the vote away entirely. The only states in which black men never lost the right to vote were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. The situation in what was then the northwest region of the country was even worse. In Ohio, the state constitution of 1802 deprived blacks of the right to vote, to hold public office, and to testify against whites in court. Over the next five years, more restrictions were placed on African Americans. They could not live in Ohio without a certificate proving their free status, they had to post a $500 bond "to pay for their support in case of want," and they were prohibited from joining the state militia. In 1831 blacks were excluded from serving on juries and were not allowed admittance to state poorhouses, insane asylums, and other institutions. Fortunately, some of these laws were not stringently enforced, or it would have been virtually impossible for any African American to emigrate to Ohio. In Illinois there were severe restrictions on free blacks entering the state, and Indiana barred them altogether. Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin were no friendlier. Because of this, the black populations of the northwestern states never exceeded 1 percent. African Americans also faced violence at the hands of white northerners. Individual cases of assault and murder occured throughout the North, as did daily insults and harassment. Between 1820 and 1850, Northern blacks also became the frequent targets of mob violence. Whites looted, tore down, and burned black homes, churches, schools, and meeting halls. They stoned, beat, and sometimes murdered blacks. Philadelphia was the site of the worst and most frequent mob violence. City officials there generally refused to protect African Americans from white mobs and blamed blacks for inciting the violence with their "uppity" behavior. African Americans and their white allies did not simply sit back and accept Northern racism; they responded to it in a whole range of ways.... Continued here: Race-based legislation

What does any of that have to do with systemic racism in 2021?

 

[Nostra]

Does that really make sense?
If America is systemically racist why didn’t the Kenyan address such racism?
Did the Kenyan even say the words “systemic racism” once during his eight year reign of terror?
Hmmm....does anything seem odd to you?

Which part are you struggling with? The systemic part or the racism part?

Think of it this way. The United States is composed of 50 different states, each was free to pass their own laws and set up their own way of doing things. Although slavery was a part of the makeup of many of the southern states (thereby not exactly systemic), the laws passed to negatively restrict and control the movement and lives of black people existed in all 50 states.

That is what is meant when it is said that racism is systemic to the entire United States of America and although many if not all of those racist laws have been rescinded, the hearts and minds of some of those who were alive during the time when it was not only acceptable to treat black people as lesser human beings, but legal to do so are still here and have not changed. The remnants of that white supremacist system remain in the attitudes and beliefs of the remaining racists in our country. Where the younger generations who have never lived under that segregated system are picking up these attitudes and hatred are learning this can only be speculated upon but I would imagine primarily from family & friends, and now of course we have the internet.

For President Obama to win the election for President of the United States of America, he only needed a majority. And although it may not have been a situation of 51% to 49%, 49% percent of the people being unhappy with the results of an election is a lot of unhappy people. You go ahead and draw the next conclusion.

Um, so slavery is why there is systemic racism in 2021?

When did we end slavery?

 

[BrokeLoser]

the hearts and minds of some of those who were alive during the time when it was not only acceptable to treat black people as lesser human beings, but legal to do so are still here and have not changed. The remnants of that white supremacist system remain in the attitudes and beliefs of the remaining racists in our country. Where the younger generations who have never lived under that segregated system are picking up these attitudes and hatred are learning this can only be speculated upon but I would imagine primarily from family & friends, and now of course we have the internet.

All because you said so huh?
How did you concoct such a THEORY...what facts / data did you apply to arrive at such an OPINION?

 

[HenryBHough]

Only 1/2 black so it doesn't count.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Our nation isnt represented with systemic racism, whatever the hell that means.

America has become the junkie who denies he has a drug problem.

Yeah? Prove it then. Show us systemic racism.

Just a glimpse

To the fugitive slave fleeing a life of bondage, the North was a land of freedom. Or so he or she thought. Upon arriving there, the fugitive found that, though they were no longer slaves, neither were they free. African Americans in the North lived in a strange state of semi-freedom. The North may had emancipated its slaves, but it was not ready to treat the blacks as citizens. . . or sometimes even as human beings. Northern racism grew directly out of slavery and the ideas used to justify the institution. The concepts of "black" and "white" did not arrive with the first Europeans and Africans, but grew on American soil. During Andrew Jackson's administration, racist ideas took on new meaning. Jackson brought in the "Age of the Common Man." Under his administration, working class people gained rights they had not before possessed, particularly the right to vote. But the only people who benefited were white men. Blacks, Indians, and women were not included. This was a time when European immigrants were pouring into the North. Many of these people had faced discrimination and hardship in their native countries. But in America they found their rights expanding rapidly. They had entered a country in which they were part of a privileged category called "white." Classism and ethnic prejudices did exist among white Americans and had a tremendous impact on people's lives. But the bottom line was that for white people in America, no matter how poor or degraded they were, they knew there was a class of people below them. Poor whites were considered superior to blacks, and to Indians as well, simply by virtue of being white. Because of this, most identified with the rest of the white race and defended the institution of slavery. Working class whites did this even though slavery did not benefit them directly and was in many ways against their best interests. Before 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States. In the northeastern states, blacks faced discrimination in many forms. Segregation was rampant, especially in Philadelphia, where African Americans were excluded from concert halls, public transportation, schools, churches, orphanages, and other places. Blacks were also forced out of the skilled professions in which they had been working. And soon after the turn of the century, African American men began to lose the right to vote -- a right that many states had granted following the Revolutionary War. Simultaneously, voting rights were being expanded for whites. New Jersey took the black vote away in 1807; in 1818, Connecticut took it away from black men who had not voted previously; in 1821, New York took away property requirements for white men to vote, but kept them for blacks. This meant that only a tiny percentage of black men could vote in that state. In 1838, Pennsylvania took the vote away entirely. The only states in which black men never lost the right to vote were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. The situation in what was then the northwest region of the country was even worse. In Ohio, the state constitution of 1802 deprived blacks of the right to vote, to hold public office, and to testify against whites in court. Over the next five years, more restrictions were placed on African Americans. They could not live in Ohio without a certificate proving their free status, they had to post a $500 bond "to pay for their support in case of want," and they were prohibited from joining the state militia. In 1831 blacks were excluded from serving on juries and were not allowed admittance to state poorhouses, insane asylums, and other institutions. Fortunately, some of these laws were not stringently enforced, or it would have been virtually impossible for any African American to emigrate to Ohio. In Illinois there were severe restrictions on free blacks entering the state, and Indiana barred them altogether. Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin were no friendlier. Because of this, the black populations of the northwestern states never exceeded 1 percent. African Americans also faced violence at the hands of white northerners. Individual cases of assault and murder occured throughout the North, as did daily insults and harassment. Between 1820 and 1850, Northern blacks also became the frequent targets of mob violence. Whites looted, tore down, and burned black homes, churches, schools, and meeting halls. They stoned, beat, and sometimes murdered blacks. Philadelphia was the site of the worst and most frequent mob violence. City officials there generally refused to protect African Americans from white mobs and blamed blacks for inciting the violence with their "uppity" behavior. African Americans and their white allies did not simply sit back and accept Northern racism; they responded to it in a whole range of ways.... Continued here: Race-based legislation

What does any of that have to do with systemic racism in 2021?

I explained that in my first response. Essentially the people didn't change, only the laws did.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

the hearts and minds of some of those who were alive during the time when it was not only acceptable to treat black people as lesser human beings, but legal to do so are still here and have not changed. The remnants of that white supremacist system remain in the attitudes and beliefs of the remaining racists in our country. Where the younger generations who have never lived under that segregated system are picking up these attitudes and hatred are learning this can only be speculated upon but I would imagine primarily from family & friends, and now of course we have the internet.

All because you said so huh?
How did you concoct such a THEORY...what facts / data did you apply to arrive at such an OPINION?

It's not theory, it's history, American history.

What set of circumstances could possibly have caused the passage of racist laws against black people in ALL 50 STATES? The fact that this occurred at a national level is EXACTLY what makes the racism systemic.

I don't know how to break it down any further than that. This is fact, not my opinion.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Does that really make sense?
If America is systemically racist why didn’t the Kenyan address such racism?
Did the Kenyan even say the words “systemic racism” once during his eight year reign of terror?
Hmmm....does anything seem odd to you?

Which part are you struggling with? The systemic part or the racism part?

Think of it this way. The United States is composed of 50 different states, each was free to pass their own laws and set up their own way of doing things. Although slavery was a part of the makeup of many of the southern states (thereby not exactly systemic), the laws passed to negatively restrict and control the movement and lives of black people existed in all 50 states.

That is what is meant when it is said that racism is systemic to the entire United States of America and although many if not all of those racist laws have been rescinded, the hearts and minds of some of those who were alive during the time when it was not only acceptable to treat black people as lesser human beings, but legal to do so are still here and have not changed. The remnants of that white supremacist system remain in the attitudes and beliefs of the remaining racists in our country. Where the younger generations who have never lived under that segregated system are picking up these attitudes and hatred are learning this can only be speculated upon but I would imagine primarily from family & friends, and now of course we have the internet.

For President Obama to win the election for President of the United States of America, he only needed a majority. And although it may not have been a situation of 51% to 49%, 49% percent of the people being unhappy with the results of an election is a lot of unhappy people. You go ahead and draw the next conclusion.

Um, so slavery is why there is systemic racism in 2021? <---- See my 3rd paragraph below

Well you're certainly an example of how things have not changed for some people.

We all know when slavery ended however did the animus against people of African descent just magically disappear when slavery ended or did the white supremacists come up with a new system to further subjugate black people? Things like Jim Crow, separate but equal, convict leasing programs, racial restrictive convenants that were created for the purpose of preventing white property owners from selling to black people and keeping the neighborhoods white, and avalanche of other legislation in every single state in the U.S. that had a negative impact of the lives of black people.

Yeah our country was founded on systemic racism, and has existed for more than 3/4th of it's life in that state. Not only has not enough time gone by for America to claim it no longer exists under the specter of it's white supremacist past, it still has far too many citizens who are white supremacists or subscribe to the beliefs of white supremacy even if they won't admit.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Does that really make sense?
If America is systemically racist why didn’t the Kenyan address such racism?
Did the Kenyan even say the words “systemic racism” once during his eight year reign of terror?
Hmmm....does anything seem odd to you?

Yes. Because he was only half black.

But he identifies as black.
I’ve never once heard him identify as a white man...have you?

Whites made the rule that if you have 1 drop of black blood then that makes you black. Don't blame us.

​

The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was historically prominent in the United States in the 20th century. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of black ancestry ("one drop" of black blood)[1][2] is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms).​

This concept became codified into the law of some states in the early 20th century. It was associated with the principle of "invisible blackness" that developed after the long history of racial interaction in the South, which had included the hardening of slavery as a racial caste and later segregation. It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.[3]​

​

The one-drop rule is defunct in law in the United States and was never codified into federal law.​

One-drop rule - Wikipedia​

​

​

​

Then I guess everyone is black. Racist.

 

[BrokeLoser]

the hearts and minds of some of those who were alive during the time when it was not only acceptable to treat black people as lesser human beings, but legal to do so are still here and have not changed. The remnants of that white supremacist system remain in the attitudes and beliefs of the remaining racists in our country. Where the younger generations who have never lived under that segregated system are picking up these attitudes and hatred are learning this can only be speculated upon but I would imagine primarily from family & friends, and now of course we have the internet.

All because you said so huh?
How did you concoct such a THEORY...what facts / data did you apply to arrive at such an OPINION?

It's not theory, it's history, American history.

What set of circumstances could possibly have caused the passage of racist laws against black people in ALL 50 STATES? The fact that this occurred at a national level is EXACTLY what makes the racism systemic.

I don't know how to break it down any further than that. This is fact, not my opinion.

Negative
It is your theory that systemic racism still exists in America...BUT meanwhile blacks attend Ivy League University’s, become doctors, lawyers and Presidents...that makes your desperate theory a complete and total bust.
Back to the drawing board you go.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Negative
It is your theory that systemic racism still exists in America...BUT meanwhile blacks attend Ivy League University’s, become doctors, lawyers and Presidents...that makes your desperate theory a complete and total bust.
Back to the drawing board you go.

There have always been exceptions to the norm, people who have prospered in spite of living in a racist society, but you already know this. But just because some people are fortunate enough to overcome the obstacles presented by systemic racism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You haven't been able to refute anything I've posted you just come back with your opinion that I'm wrong so let me ask you this. If systemic racism has been stamped out in the United States why are there still so many violations of the Civil Rights Act and beyond taking place?

This still exists:

The deed to your Seattle-area home may contain racist language. Here’s how to fix it.
Starting in the 1920s, covenants in force throughout the region allowed only white people to own property in most neighborhoods in Seattle. The covenants were outlawed in the 1960s, but now a new state law allows property owners to strike them from a property deed.

If you own a house in Broadmoor, Capitol Hill, View Ridge, Queen Anne or more than a dozen other Seattle neighborhoods, there’s a good chance that the property deed allows only white people to own the land it sits on.

They date back to a time when racial discrimination was explicitly allowed in King County, when restrictive covenants shaped the region’s demographic patterns — a reality that persists to this day. The University of Washington has found examples of more than 20,000 properties here that contain racist covenants.

But now, you can fix it — at least on paper. As of Jan. 1, a new law allows you to file a request with the county auditor striking the discriminatory language from your deed. There’s no fee, and no need to hire a lawyer.

How to strike racist covenants from your property deed

The Spokane County auditor's office has posted step-by-step instructions on how to modify a document containing racial restrictive covenants; the process is the same no matter what county you live in. You can also click here for a list of all county auditors.

What's in your deed? Here's a neighborhood-by-neighborhood guide to restrictions across King County.
Covenants restricting ownership by race were ruled unenforceable by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948, and housing discrimination was made illegal by Congress in 1968 under the Fair Housing Law. Even though the covenants cannot be enforced, they’re often a shock to homeowners who read their deeds or research their house’s history.

That’s what happened to Pam Transue’s niece, who moved here from Baltimore with her husband and son. The family was delighted with the house they found in Tacoma. But when they began to sign the closing documents, they discovered covenants that restricted ownership to whites only.

Transue’s niece — who didn’t want to be quoted by name — is white, her husband is Japanese-American and their adopted son is Korean-American.

“What a horrible thing to have to read for anybody,” said Transue, a former president of Tacoma Community College. “You talk to people and they say, ‘It’s not enforceable,’ but that’s not the point. The point is, this is wrong. It’s still there on the books, and it’s wrong.”

Transue took her concerns to Rep. Christine Kilduff, D-Lakewood, who sponsored legislation in 2018 that allows homeowners to file a request with the county auditor to strike the words from the deed.
Striking the racist wording is akin to saying “I’m taking a stand against discrimination,” said Kilduff, who was able to get the legislation, SHB 2514, passed on the first try. State auditors and recorders call it a “restrictive covenant modification” document, and it allows a property owner to file a document that legally strikes the void and unenforceable provisions from the deed, although it does not physically erase the words.

Restrictive covenants on race were commonly written into deeds across the nation after 1926, the year that the U.S. Supreme Court initially found them to be lawful, said UW history professor James Gregory. A property owner who violated them risked a lawsuit from neighbors, or could have a property sale voided.

“It was a very threatening thing,” Gregory said of the restrictive covenants.

Gregory, who moved to Seattle in 1993 and directs the UW’s Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project, has long been interested in the city’s racial history. Not long after moving here, he came to realize that Seattleites were oblivious of the city’s history of segregating neighborhoods. “Most people, of all ages, seemed to think that civil rights only happened in Selma,” he said.
One day in the early 2000s, he went to the King County office where deeds are kept on microfilm, and began to do research by starting with his own home’s property in North Seattle. It only took a half-hour to find what he was looking for: Evidence that ownership of his house was once restricted to whites only.

Sometimes the covenants are written into neighborhood association bylaws, sometimes in the deed itself, as with Transue’s niece’s home in Tacoma. Often, however, they are written up separately from the deed, and referenced in the subdivision’s plat documents, or neighborhood maps that show properties plot by plot. When you buy a house, the title company will give you a warranty deed that includes a reference to another document that’s not part of the paperwork; that hidden document is where race restrictions on ownership are often found.

“If I’m buying a piece of property, and the covenant says ‘No nonwhite people can live here,’ I would find that incredibly repugnant and offensive, and I wouldn’t want it in any deed of a house I own,” Transue said.

Since 2005, UW students have pored through property records on microfilm, looking for evidence of restrictive covenants, and finding them everywhere: Capitol Hill, Madison Park, Queen Anne, Magnolia, Blue Ridge, Olympic Hills, Laurelhurst — almost all of the Seattle neighborhoods north of the Ship Canal. They were also widespread in Seattle’s suburbs.

Beacon Hill and Blue Ridge covenants restricted property ownership to “no person other than one of the Caucasian race.” All of Broadmoor was off-limits to anyone identified as “Hebrew … Ethiopian, Malay or any Asiatic Race.” (“Hebrew,” “Ethiopian” and “Malay” were stand-ins for Jews, African-Americans and Filipinos, according to the research.) Exceptions were typically made for “a domestic servant actually employed by a Caucasian occupant of said lot or building.”

Blue Ridge resident Doug Dunham says he collected 500 signatures from the property owners in his neighborhood in 1989 to amend the racial clause out of the community’s covenant. The project took him about a year. “I wish we had had that procedure decades earlier,” he said of the new law.

After the UW project began, a woman who lived in a Clyde Hill subdivision found that the deed to her property, written in 1947, restricted ownership to “Aryans only.” That restriction was written two years after Hitler’s death during World War II, and after the horrors of the Holocaust had become known, Gregory said.

Gregory said the covenants themselves were not the main instrument of segregation. Rather, segregation was enforced through social means — through “angry white neighbors throwing rocks through windows, yelling or shunning people, or just the reputation of the neighborhood.”

“But the covenants themselves, the act of writing them, was an indication that enforced segregation was entirely legal and was in the interest of the public,” he said.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Asian Americans were the first victims of segregation in Seattle. In 1927, the National Association of Realtors met here and spread the idea of race-restrictive covenants among local realtors and developers; that same year, the Capitol Hill Community Club retroactively started a campaign to make that neighborhood of older homes restricted to whites only, Gregory said.

By 1960, “nearly all Black, Asian, and Native American families were locked in a triangle of census tracts in the Central District and Chinatown,” according to the The Civil Rights & Labor History Project. Twenty years later, census data shows, Seattle neighborhoods north of the Ship Canal, West Seattle, the Eastside and South King County remained virtually all white.
Even as late as 1941, an exclusive subdivision that opened north of Seattle called Innis Arden — subdivided by William Boeing, founder of Boeing Aircraft — included restrictive covenants in its homeowners association rules that prohibited the sale or lease of the homes to anyone who wasn’t white. In early 2006, the state Legislature passed a law urging homeowners associations to expunge racist restrictions, and later that year, the Innis Arden association deleted the offensive paragraphs.

That was one step. But most restrictive covenants are attached to individual properties not governed by homeowners’ associations, Gregory said.

The covenants can’t ever be completely removed, because they are part of the property record. The legislation “simply gives the property owner the power and right to add, essentially, a statement that declares that this is obnoxious and null and void,” Gregory said.

“I’m not sure we want to get rid of them,” he said. “They’re part of history. They should be acknowledged. Not hidden.”

 

[BrokeLoser]

Negative
It is your theory that systemic racism still exists in America...BUT meanwhile blacks attend Ivy League University’s, become doctors, lawyers and Presidents...that makes your desperate theory a complete and total bust.
Back to the drawing board you go.

There have always been exceptions to the norm, people who have prospered in spite of living in a racist society, but you already know this. But just because some people are fortunate enough to overcome the obstacles presented by systemic racism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You haven't been able to refute anything I've posted you just come back with your opinion that I'm wrong so let me ask you this. If systemic racism has been stamped out in the United States why are there still so many violations of the Civil Rights Act and beyond taking place?

This still exists:

The deed to your Seattle-area home may contain racist language. Here’s how to fix it.
Starting in the 1920s, covenants in force throughout the region allowed only white people to own property in most neighborhoods in Seattle. The covenants were outlawed in the 1960s, but now a new state law allows property owners to strike them from a property deed.

If you own a house in Broadmoor, Capitol Hill, View Ridge, Queen Anne or more than a dozen other Seattle neighborhoods, there’s a good chance that the property deed allows only white people to own the land it sits on.

They date back to a time when racial discrimination was explicitly allowed in King County, when restrictive covenants shaped the region’s demographic patterns — a reality that persists to this day. The University of Washington has found examples of more than 20,000 properties here that contain racist covenants.

But now, you can fix it — at least on paper. As of Jan. 1, a new law allows you to file a request with the county auditor striking the discriminatory language from your deed. There’s no fee, and no need to hire a lawyer.

How to strike racist covenants from your property deed

The Spokane County auditor's office has posted step-by-step instructions on how to modify a document containing racial restrictive covenants; the process is the same no matter what county you live in. You can also click here for a list of all county auditors.

What's in your deed? Here's a neighborhood-by-neighborhood guide to restrictions across King County.
Covenants restricting ownership by race were ruled unenforceable by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948, and housing discrimination was made illegal by Congress in 1968 under the Fair Housing Law. Even though the covenants cannot be enforced, they’re often a shock to homeowners who read their deeds or research their house’s history.

That’s what happened to Pam Transue’s niece, who moved here from Baltimore with her husband and son. The family was delighted with the house they found in Tacoma. But when they began to sign the closing documents, they discovered covenants that restricted ownership to whites only.

Transue’s niece — who didn’t want to be quoted by name — is white, her husband is Japanese-American and their adopted son is Korean-American.

“What a horrible thing to have to read for anybody,” said Transue, a former president of Tacoma Community College. “You talk to people and they say, ‘It’s not enforceable,’ but that’s not the point. The point is, this is wrong. It’s still there on the books, and it’s wrong.”

Transue took her concerns to Rep. Christine Kilduff, D-Lakewood, who sponsored legislation in 2018 that allows homeowners to file a request with the county auditor to strike the words from the deed.
Striking the racist wording is akin to saying “I’m taking a stand against discrimination,” said Kilduff, who was able to get the legislation, SHB 2514, passed on the first try. State auditors and recorders call it a “restrictive covenant modification” document, and it allows a property owner to file a document that legally strikes the void and unenforceable provisions from the deed, although it does not physically erase the words.

Restrictive covenants on race were commonly written into deeds across the nation after 1926, the year that the U.S. Supreme Court initially found them to be lawful, said UW history professor James Gregory. A property owner who violated them risked a lawsuit from neighbors, or could have a property sale voided.

“It was a very threatening thing,” Gregory said of the restrictive covenants.

Gregory, who moved to Seattle in 1993 and directs the UW’s Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project, has long been interested in the city’s racial history. Not long after moving here, he came to realize that Seattleites were oblivious of the city’s history of segregating neighborhoods. “Most people, of all ages, seemed to think that civil rights only happened in Selma,” he said.
One day in the early 2000s, he went to the King County office where deeds are kept on microfilm, and began to do research by starting with his own home’s property in North Seattle. It only took a half-hour to find what he was looking for: Evidence that ownership of his house was once restricted to whites only.

Sometimes the covenants are written into neighborhood association bylaws, sometimes in the deed itself, as with Transue’s niece’s home in Tacoma. Often, however, they are written up separately from the deed, and referenced in the subdivision’s plat documents, or neighborhood maps that show properties plot by plot. When you buy a house, the title company will give you a warranty deed that includes a reference to another document that’s not part of the paperwork; that hidden document is where race restrictions on ownership are often found.

“If I’m buying a piece of property, and the covenant says ‘No nonwhite people can live here,’ I would find that incredibly repugnant and offensive, and I wouldn’t want it in any deed of a house I own,” Transue said.

Since 2005, UW students have pored through property records on microfilm, looking for evidence of restrictive covenants, and finding them everywhere: Capitol Hill, Madison Park, Queen Anne, Magnolia, Blue Ridge, Olympic Hills, Laurelhurst — almost all of the Seattle neighborhoods north of the Ship Canal. They were also widespread in Seattle’s suburbs.

Beacon Hill and Blue Ridge covenants restricted property ownership to “no person other than one of the Caucasian race.” All of Broadmoor was off-limits to anyone identified as “Hebrew … Ethiopian, Malay or any Asiatic Race.” (“Hebrew,” “Ethiopian” and “Malay” were stand-ins for Jews, African-Americans and Filipinos, according to the research.) Exceptions were typically made for “a domestic servant actually employed by a Caucasian occupant of said lot or building.”

Blue Ridge resident Doug Dunham says he collected 500 signatures from the property owners in his neighborhood in 1989 to amend the racial clause out of the community’s covenant. The project took him about a year. “I wish we had had that procedure decades earlier,” he said of the new law.

After the UW project began, a woman who lived in a Clyde Hill subdivision found that the deed to her property, written in 1947, restricted ownership to “Aryans only.” That restriction was written two years after Hitler’s death during World War II, and after the horrors of the Holocaust had become known, Gregory said.

Gregory said the covenants themselves were not the main instrument of segregation. Rather, segregation was enforced through social means — through “angry white neighbors throwing rocks through windows, yelling or shunning people, or just the reputation of the neighborhood.”

“But the covenants themselves, the act of writing them, was an indication that enforced segregation was entirely legal and was in the interest of the public,” he said.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Asian Americans were the first victims of segregation in Seattle. In 1927, the National Association of Realtors met here and spread the idea of race-restrictive covenants among local realtors and developers; that same year, the Capitol Hill Community Club retroactively started a campaign to make that neighborhood of older homes restricted to whites only, Gregory said.

By 1960, “nearly all Black, Asian, and Native American families were locked in a triangle of census tracts in the Central District and Chinatown,” according to the The Civil Rights & Labor History Project. Twenty years later, census data shows, Seattle neighborhoods north of the Ship Canal, West Seattle, the Eastside and South King County remained virtually all white.
Even as late as 1941, an exclusive subdivision that opened north of Seattle called Innis Arden — subdivided by William Boeing, founder of Boeing Aircraft — included restrictive covenants in its homeowners association rules that prohibited the sale or lease of the homes to anyone who wasn’t white. In early 2006, the state Legislature passed a law urging homeowners associations to expunge racist restrictions, and later that year, the Innis Arden association deleted the offensive paragraphs.

That was one step. But most restrictive covenants are attached to individual properties not governed by homeowners’ associations, Gregory said.

The covenants can’t ever be completely removed, because they are part of the property record. The legislation “simply gives the property owner the power and right to add, essentially, a statement that declares that this is obnoxious and null and void,” Gregory said.

“I’m not sure we want to get rid of them,” he said. “They’re part of history. They should be acknowledged. Not hidden.”

You’re trying real hard to sell your theory...that’s cute.
Did you know that in South Carolina a man can beat his wife as long as he does it on the courthouse steps on Sunday?
Since such a law is still on the books certainly men are taking advantage of it...right?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You’re trying real hard to sell your theory...that’s cute.
Did you know that in South Carolina a man can beat his wife as long as he does it on the courthouse steps on Sunday?
Since such a law is still on the books certainly men are taking advantage of it...right?

You still haven't been able to refute what I said. And your response is an example of a law still being on the books and presumably still valid, not what I've been explaining which are laws that made racial discrimination no longer lawful yet people keep engaging in the prohibited behavior anyway.

If a law rule, policy or procedure is written so that it has a disparate racial impact or produces a disparate outcome for a certain group, that is no longer lawful, yet it goes on all of the time.

Check out the EEOC's race based cases for the last few years.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You’re trying real hard to sell your theory...that’s cute.
Did you know that in South Carolina a man can beat his wife as long as he does it on the courthouse steps on Sunday?
Since such a law is still on the books certainly men are taking advantage of it...right?

You still haven't been able to refute what I said. And your response is an example of a law still being on the books and presumably still valid, not what I've been explaining which are laws that that made racial discrimination no longer lawful yet people keep engaging in the prohibited behavior anyway.

If a law rule, policy or procedure is written so that it has a disparate racial impact or produces a disparate outcome for a certain group, that is no longer lawful, yet it goes on all of the time.

Check out the EEOC's race based cases for the last few years.

I have in fact refuted your opinion a number of times...Your opinion that impactful systemic racism still exists is just plain silly. Again, blacks are achieving in this country all day everyday and there is no such mechanism preventing them from doing so.
Think about the obvious...Why didn’t the Kenyan ever use that shiny new tool / phrase “systemic racism“ during his reign?...the answer: because it wasn’t concocted until Trump took office.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Can a nation be “systemically racist” and elect a black president twice?

No.

The racists didn't vote for Obama. It was democrats and independents that did that.

But now republicans control the majority of state houses, making racism systematic.

Please point out a law that is racist.

You just want one? There are tons of them

Really ? Name one and not some obscure law that nobody enforces.

 

[bodecea]

Does that really make sense?
If America is systemically racist why didn’t the Kenyan address such racism?
Did the Kenyan even say the words “systemic racism” once during his eight year reign of terror?
Hmmm....does anything seem odd to you?

Did EVERYONE vote for Former President Obama? Twice?

 

[bodecea]

Does that really make sense?
If America is systemically racist why didn’t the Kenyan address such racism?
Did the Kenyan even say the words “systemic racism” once during his eight year reign of terror?
Hmmm....does anything seem odd to you?

LoL dude, yes - A nation certainly can be systemically racist and elect a black guy twice. And the Kenyan Marxist Mooslim did address racism, but his hands were somewhat tied. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. So he walked on eggshells, yet somehow you don't get that.

Stupid is as stupid does!

I wonder if the OP voted for Former President Obama.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Please point out a law that is racist.

Just read the laws the USSC struck down as racist.

The list is quite long.

Struck down ? So what your saying is there is no current law that is racist ? Wait, Affirmative Action is racist so I guess there is one.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Does that really make sense?
If America is systemically racist why didn’t the Kenyan address such racism?
Did the Kenyan even say the words “systemic racism” once during his eight year reign of terror?
Hmmm....does anything seem odd to you?

LoL dude, yes - A nation certainly can be systemically racist and elect a black guy twice. And the Kenyan Marxist Mooslim did address racism, but his hands were somewhat tied. He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. So he walked on eggshells, yet somehow you don't get that.

Stupid is as stupid does!

I wonder if the OP voted for Former President Obama.

The OP only votes for REAL core Americans who seek to protect and preserve ALL THINGS the American Way.
Does that answer your question?